The blog will offer purely objective and candid analyses for a better understanding of the events that keep happening and that provide dynamism and direction to the flow of the history and development of the human societies. Being a forum, the comments and opinions from readers whether for or against the views expressed in it, are gratefully welcome. Suggestions for improving the blog are welcome.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

The main
villain of 9/11 catastrophe, Osama Ben laden is dead. His outfit
Al-Qaida is immensely debilitated. President G. W Bush announced in the
aftermath of 9/11 that justice would done for the death of 3000 Americans
killed on that bleak day. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein an enemy of Israel and ruthless
dictator is gone. Libyan ruler Mohammad Qaddafi died a very humiliating death
at the hands of his own people. Qaddafi too was on the hit list of the United
States as well as Israel for his revolution, fomented to keep him and his
progeny in the power saddle. Hosni Mubarak, a protégé of both United
States and Israel was swept away by the torrent of public outrage against
him.

The whole
Middle East is in the throe of a change from absolutism to democratic orders.
This momentous change is unbelievable and could not be imagined until few years
back. But according to a Chinese proverb that “a single spark can start a
prairie fire”, the self- immolation of one Tunisian vendor
Mohamed Bouazizi became a dazzling harbinger to bring about an
unprecedented phenomenal transformation
in the tribal fiefdoms of the Middle East. If this sweeping change can be
termed as miracle then certainly it is so.Instead
of clash and unremitting belligerency it is time to mount the imperative
dialogue between West and Islam and for that matter between Christianity and
Islam, as Christianity is synonymous with the western way of life.

Since
World War II, enough bloodshed has taken place in various Islamic countries. In
Iran-Iraq (1908-1988) war more than half a million people died from both the sides.
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 during G.W bush presidency, to the present,
over a million Iraqis have perished in war related operations and in continued
violence, sectarian strife and insurgent attacks. Besides the invading coalition
forces too suffered causalities. Iraq though is now a democracy but is utterly
unstable as Shia Sunni cleavage is still taking its toll on daily
basis. Since the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in December 2011, the
anarchy and sectarian violence have again gripped that country marred by the centuries-old
antagonism between the Shias and the Sunnis.

Since the
start of the Afghan war in October 2001 by United States and allies, countless
people have so far lost their lives in the killing fields of Afghanistan. If
someone argues that this is the part of the inevitable clash of civilizations
then this argument is not worth a cent. How come that a civilization is being
wiped off for the sake and survival of another civilization? These are not
medieval ages when the victor could eliminate the vanquished population through
the macabre parched earth massacres.

In
Afghanistan, USA has been engaged along with the ISAF and NATO in
chasing the al-Qaida operatives whose large number and top notches
have been killed through drone attacks. But indiscreetly, America opened
another front also against Taliban. It is a widely known fact that both these
militant outfits were the front line fighters on behalf of America and west
against the Soviet Union. But USA later disowned them. The Taliban pleaded for
peaceful dialogue on Osama bin Laden but perhaps President George
Bush contemptuously spurned that offer. He wanted to defeat them militarily.
The Taliban could be goaded and used in similar situations around the world or
to become surrogates of the United States in Afghanistan.

Factually
Taliban had no role in the 9/11 incident. They also posed no threat to the
Christian civilization. They could be harnessed and their militancy or
religious zeal and barbarian impulse could be tempered down. In any case their
presence as barbarian proponents of fanatic Islam could not hold water even
within the normal Islamic creed. But treating them as enemy force, the United
States barring initial short term victory, has not been able to subdue them to
this day.

Now the
rag-tag bands can hold the biggest armies through a war of attrition and
because of their abettors and access to superior weapons. So there is no cogent
point or compelling logic or even any useful purpose for the American troops to
keep on guarding that God forsaken land. All that America ought to do in
Afghanistan is to promote a genuine inclusive democracy ensuring sectarian
harmony and division of power on merit basis. Or else there can be a secular
order that rises above the sectarian schisms and ethnic considerations.

The
United States and the western allies cannot wage a war upon the Islamic
militants till such time that only the moderate Muslims are left behind. It is
unthinkable that all the Muslims can be subdued, annihilated or converted to
Christianity. It is manifest that the US and Western militarism and penchant
for bellicosity is correspondingly propping up the militancy in the Muslim world.
So the best, the only viable and legitimate way-out is to coexist with the
Islamic bloc. In due course of time the Muslim societies will have to come out
of the strait-jackets of obscurantism, conservatism and orthodoxy and imbibe
plausible ingredients of the modern societies.

One of
the most outstanding hallmarks of the modern societies is the representative
governance and a belief that power belongs to the people. Already such
enlightened Islam states are in existence in Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, and
Bangladesh and to great extent in Pakistan. With the emergence of such
progressive and liberal democratic states, the clash of civilizations can be
averted.

The fanatic
Islamic factions would be marginalized. Possibly, they could also tone down
their extremism and join the mainstream population as normal practicing Muslim
faithful. But if the west continues to press them hard and treating them as
pariahs, bandits and terrorists they would continue to proliferate and their
defiance and antagonism to the west would keep intensifying.

It is
high time to initiate a healing process of the Islamic polities that have been
severely hurt by the inexorable onslaughts of the western military might for
giving ascendancy to the western civilization. But primarily it is not a
manifestation of clash of civilizations as enunciated by Harvard Professor
Samuel Huntington. It is essentially to ensure unhindered availability of raw
material including oil to the West for running their industries. The Middle
Eastern cauldron has been boiling and this region has remained in perpetual
tension because of the Palestinian dispute.

The
denial of legitimate right of the beleaguered Palestinian to an independent
state is central to the lack of peace and progress in the Middle East. The
western countries and United States should convince their protégé Israel to
implement the United Nations Resolution 181 for the creation of a Jewish state,
along with an Arab state.

So
instead of rampaging the Middle East by perpetual warfare and fritter away
their money and lose men, the United States and the Western Europe should focus
on this most pressing issue and once it is resolved the specter of clash
between the civilizations would look farcical and absolute myth.

Keeping
in view all the embattled regions where United States and NATO forces are
engaged in wars against the Islamic militants and radicals, one would draw the
conclusion that it has remained merely a wild goose chase and has not produced
any tangible results nor would it be capable of doing so in the future. Yet the
silver lining is gradually appearing with the withdrawal the bulk of American
troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq. But if behind these withdrawals there is
a hidden agenda of attacking Iran then the world can look ahead for an
unimaginable catastrophe whose collateral damage and fallout would be
disastrous both for Iran and Israel.

Instead,
the safest and the only sagacious course to is to initiate dialogue for
integrating the civilizations into a bond of peace and mutual understanding and
harmonizing them into a lasting fraternal relationship irrespective of their
faith, ethnicity or region. The first step towards that coveted direction
should be a dialogue between Islam and the West for mutual coexistence. In this
regard, the Arab spring is the right, legitimate and a desirable solution to
deflate the religious radicalism and anti-American and anti-west sentiment in
the Muslim world.

Let us
rid this world of the incessant sufferings, the horrendous pogroms, the
devastating wars and bloody conflicts that have kept the humanity divided since
the dawn of human civilization. This is the threshold century to bring the
humanity on one common platform and convert this planet into a veritable
paradise. Humanity can jointly spring technological and scientific miracles to
fathom this universe and also to find concrete solutions to diseases and
economic woes of the inhabitants of the earth.

The
modalities of convening an international conference for deliberating upon such
a watershed dialogue can be worked out by mutual consultations between the
United States plus West on one side and the leaders, scholars and theologians
from the Islamic countries. If such a dialogue fructifies it would be a
monumental breakthrough and giant step for the world peace that has remained
elusive so far. As the world leader the United States should take lead in this
historic mission.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

The European countries and more
specifically the United States should not hasten to disavow or discredit the
newly established democratic governments in the Middle East for their inability
to stem the huge protests mounted against the anti-Islam provocative video.

The United States and other
countries, as the catalysts and supporters of the momentous Arab spring that
dismantled the trenchant oppressive dictatorships, should not rush to draw the
conclusions that the new establishments failed to stop the agitations and protests,
which spontaneously erupted due to the denigration of their most beloved
prophet Muhammad.

They should realize that these
newly born democracies are nascent and currently unstable for the obvious
reason that need time to move to the stage of stability and good governance.
This is certainly a transitional period and is understandably murky because there
can never be a switch off and switch one shift between the two contrasting
systems.

The Arab oligarchies either one man
rule or family dynasties, were ruthless and oppressive. In those regimes asking for human rights and civil
liberties was treated as crime, sin or anathema by the rulers.

These new democratically elected
regimes are still shaky and therefore, do not deserve to be accused of being
incompetent or insincere in combating and controlling the mass movements in
these countries triggered by extremely sensitive religious issue for the
aggrieved Muslims.

Arab Spring that has come to be known
as symbol of overthrow of the despotism and ushering of the people’s rule is
still in its infancy. To expect it of producing miracles so soon would be an irrational
and myopic tendency. As a matter of fact these regimes did not expect or forebode
such a colossal upheaval.

Secondly the institutions and the administrative
network have yet to be strong as to effectively deal with such unusual
situations and unforeseen crisis. To allege that they were accomplice in
fomenting protests is a far fetched conjecture and is not borne out by the
ground realities.

But more significantly, imperative is
to comprehend is that they cannot brutally suppress the crowds that swelled
across the cities to register their anger and protest for an act that was most
reprehensible and mala-fide. They however did their best to disperse the
mammoth crowds.

The ideological friction and debate
between the religions have been there for centuries and would continue as such.
But in this age of enlightenment, the religious bigotry and prejudices should
be cast away. We need a genre of pluralism and a culture of cohabitation. There
should be an across-the-board liberty and freedom for all religions,
denominations and sub sects to exist and practice their religious traditions
without any let and hindrance.

But extremists are there in every
society. If in other religions, there an extremists and adversaries of Islam
and of prophet Muhammad, the most respected human after god for Muslims; there
are also fanatics within the fold Islam as we have witnessed them in these
protests.

If according to a proverb that “the
worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship” then our choice should be
the newly established democratic regimes. The blame game is always easy to spur
but evidently these governments in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere have did
their best to contain the mushrooming and surging agitations and they did
succeed in that endeavor.

Moreover, these governments have
given all possible assurances to extend all help and cooperation to the United
States to find out the assailants that ransacked the US embassy in Libya. The Libyan government has moved fast to
identify and arrest the killers of the American ambassador and other staff
members in Benghazi. The matter of the fact is that the outburst was sudden and
spontaneous and could not be preempted, predicted or forewarned even by the
best of pundits and soothsayers.

Because of these sporadic
flare-ups, if the Arab spring fledgling democracies are not given enough time
to consolidate and take roots then it would be tantamount to paving way for the religious
radicals and the agents of the former tyrannical regimes to take over. Which
option is better to choose?Obviously it
is to sustain and beef up the new democracies to grow up and strengthen. It
would be a colossal betrayal to the unprecedented cause of the new democratic order
that is akin to the spectacular French revolution that liberalized and
unchained the humanity from abominable shackles of feudalism, monarchy and
rigid papacy.

The knee-jerk and whimsical
chastising of the popular dispensations in the riot-ridden countries would be tantamount
to renouncing democracy and going back to the era of tyrants. It is for the
United States and Europe that spearheaded the historic movement of Arab spring
to decide if the throwback to dictatorship is preferable or to strengthen these
new democratic regimes.

On the contrary the march and sway
of Arab Spring should be enlarged towards the other regimes in the Middle East
that are still family dynasties or ruled by the brutal autocrats and merciless
dictators. A piecemeal and selective plantation of democracy in the Middle East
looks hypocritical and a half-realized dream aimed at giving power to the people
of those countries. Even otherwise the people have awakened and finally would
elbow out the remnants and upholders of the old tyrannical orders. The age of
human rights, equality, democracy and people’s rule has already dawned and it
cannot be reversed though it may be delayed.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Google, the leading Internet Mughal has declined
a request by the White House to block the controversial video that denigrates
and caricatures the founder of Islam prophet Muhammad. The giant media network
argues that it was not consistent with its belief in freedom of speech policy to
block the highly inflammatory 13 minute video. Its argument which is patently
hollow when it insists that “It had already determined that the video did not violate its terms
of service regarding hate speech. In this case, the video stays up because it
is against the Islam religion but not Muslim people”.

Now per say even if the video does not violate the terms of
service regarding the freedom of speech, Google should withdraw it because its projection
is causing so much of turmoil in at least 20 Muslim countries that are
violently protesting its footage. The main country being unjustifiably hit is
the United States of America. The United States is also taken by surprise and
has no role in the making of the incendiary film. It was the dirty work of some
four individuals who made this detestable and uncalled-for film that has hurt
the religious feelings of about over one billion Muslims around the world.

The freedom of speech is not a cogent and compelling reason while the
Western and American embassies are being targeted, assailed, and burned and
their staff members exposed to grave danger to their lives. What other reasons
or grounds could be as imperative and unassailable as the lives of human beings
lost on both the sides.

The United States for no obvious reasons has to face the brunt of
this fury and bulging deluge of violent protests and besieging of her embassies
from the enraged Muslims. The Muslims are genuinely hurt and outraged because
their most revered figure and founder of the religion is being vilified,
slandered and mocked in such a shameful, brazen, crude and bizarre manner.

The freedom of speech looks mere taboo behind which the Google is
taking shelter. This roller coaster rule should not be applicable to defaming
and reviling the most adored and esteemed personalities, all the more the
exalted messengers of God who have connected the humans with the creator of the
universe and were a model of exemplary character and superb conduct for
humankind.

The religious prejudice and hate apart, but the fact is that all
the apostles of God, be it the Jesus Christ, Muhammad (pbuh) the Moses, the
Gautama Buddha, Guru Nanak and others were people of immaculate integrity, profound
sublimity and great blessing for the oppressed segments of humanity.” Even if
someone does not believe in a particular religion, he or she has no right to malign,
despise and spread hatred against their rival faith and their founders.

It is highly regrettable that we live in 21st century which is
exploding with unbounded knowledge and man is reaching the thus far unknown and
uncharted frontier of the universe. The
mental outlooks are broadening, the civil liberties sprouting and the
geographical boundaries are getting meaningless. Yet we have a pedigree of
human beings who live in the lurid medieval past, the age of crusades and who
are trying to inflame and trigger the religious animosity and bad blood.

“While the Rome was burning Roman Emperor Nero was playing his
flute” as the story goes. In the
prevailing scenario while the whole world is witnessing the burgeoning catastrophe
and the interstate relations being dismantled, the mighty unleashed Google is
sticking to its spurious and frivolous claim of freedom of speech. That
argument or plea, arguably, logically and morally, does not apply to the ongoing
crisis, getting worse and violent by the day.

It is like abusing some one's mother or father. If the insult to the
parents cannot be swallowed, how come that derision and smear of the spiritual
leaders of such a vast humanity can be tolerated and stomached by the
believers. In this case the Islamic believers respect their prophet more than such
precious relations.

If the Google does not heed the White House’s request to remove
this extremely damaging, diabolic and mischievous video then the Jews, Christians
and Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus should jointly register their protest by boycotting the Google
outlets and its search engines so as to show their repugnance and annoyance
against the dubious conspiracy and machination by some nasty person of
targeting an exalted prophet. It would
also be helpful in soothing and placating the enraged Muslims. May be it impels
Google to remove it from the YouTube.

It is also necessary to halt the anti-American rage that is
getting fiercer and might water down the fruits of the Arab spring that was an
historic milestone in democratizing those countries teetering under the oppressive
tyrants for ages. Should we call it the clash of civilizations? But which is the
biggest scapegoat of this pernicious chain of horrendous development? Woefully
it is our country the United States of America.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

The American democratic culture is simply
laudable. A candidate for the presidency has to toil very hard round the year
to reach that most coveted and powerful position. The marathon race for winning
the presidency in United States is beset with numerous hurdles that have to be
crossed with distinction in order to convince the American electorates that
their choice was going to be absolutely best.

The elections to be held every four years are
traditionally a colossal contest between two main parties: the Republican Party
and the Democratic Party. The entire country is gripped with a kind of formidable
frenzy and profound fever that demonstrates the deep involvement of the
citizens in choosing their president. The American people are extremely conscientious
and possess acute sense of judgment about the fielded candidates whose number finally
shrinks to two from a bunch of several candidates.

In 2012 elections the incumbent president Barack
Obama is running for the second term while Mitt Romney is a nominee of the
Republic party and a kind of challenger to the former. Both are reputed for
upholding commendable family traditions as husbands and fathers. Nevertheless,
both hail from different economic, social and ethnic background.

The holding of national conventions by both
the parties towards the end of the campaigning and canvassing period is the
most thrilling, glaring and rigorous tradition of political bouts between the two
parties. The underlying objective
of these conventions is to nominate and confirm their candidates by these two
parties for the top political positions of the PresidentandVice President. Another vital
goal is to give vent to the party’s manifesto for the next four years and to bring party cadres together.

The Republican held their conventions from august
27-30 at Tampa, Florida. The Democratic convention commenced on September 4 and
ended on September 6. In these conventions, both the parties and specifically
the two candidates place their programs and agenda before the whole nation through
excellent articulation and rhetorical speeches.

The auditoriums where these conventions
take place are filled by the delegates from various states and caucuses. With
a visible bias and enthusiasm, the participants and workers of the respective
parties are highly motivated, fired and exude a high degree of excitement and enthusiasm
and also approbation and support for their Party and its candidate.

The vision and outlook of the two parties in steering
the country both internally and in foreign affairs is candidly distinct and as
if between two markedly wide and irreconcilable isles of philosophy and outlook. Briefly the
Republicans are known to be the representatives of the wealthy classes, the
special interest groups and powerful lobbies that are in control of and own the
big corporations and businesses.

The Democrats speak in favor of the middle and
lower classes. The paramount and core issues usually deliberated in these
conventions invariably are the state of economy, the jobs, social welfare
programs, the American security and the taxation. In 2012 conventions, the Medicare
floated by Obama administration as a package of enhanced relief measures for
the low income Americans has also been overly, hotly debated issue and was one of
the main bones of contention between the two parties.

The health care domain in America takes away
whopping portion of the national budget every year. The health insurance
companies are the backdoor beneficiaries of the huge spending on the
health care. If the government would offer free or subsidized health care to its
citizens then that would be at the cost of earnings of the huge private
insurance companies run mostly by the most affluent families and individuals in
United States.

The private health insurance is also known as a rip off
corporate sector.Since the rich sections
are mostly inclined towards the Republican Party and are allies of the powerful
propaganda lobbies, they would resist any plan, howsoever in the public
interest, that could slash their fabulous incomes.

Romney claims that he is a kind of a maverick
manager of economy by virtue of his success in his private business. He
denounces Obama for mismanagement of the economy and not doing enough on the creation
of jobs. At the same time he wants to do away with the so called
"Obamacare" and replace it with the “voucher system”. He also attacks
him on withdrawing the American forces from abroad, not pressing Iran enough on
nuclear issue, and cutting down the defense budget.

But as one can figure out from these
conventions, he and other republican luminaries were lacking in the quality
and veracity of their speeches and claims. But Romney certainly has an upper
edge on Obama in the field of raising funds for the elections. The Republican
super duper business magnates are pouring money into Romney’s election funds by
millions.

Obama and his Democratic Party colleagues have
less inflow of funds because their donors are mostly the common Americans, the
working classes, low income groups or individuals. But his rhetorical skills
and oratorical finesse stand in good stead for him. He moves the crowds with
his stunning and eloquent speeches that drive his programs and plans more
succinctly and emphatically into the minds of the listeners than his
counterpart. Let us paraphrase it like this that he looks less affluent in
money but rich in dissemination, intellectual capacity and knowledge.

In this debate he had one added advantage over Mitt Romney. That advantage is to claim the right of being re-elected on his
sterling accomplishments of the past four years. Those enumerated among others were
killing of Osama Ben Laden, reviving the sinking auto industry, creating
millions of jobs despite a thoroughly shattered economy bequeathed to him by
his Republican predecessor. His implementation of the stalled Dream Act by stopping deportation of the
young undocumented immigrants, who match certain criteria, has brought him
sizable chunk of the Latino vote.

The middle class that stands benefited from his
health care plan and other special benefits seems to be more supportive of him. The
recalling of the American troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq has endeared
him to the families whose members are serving in the army. His practical
measures and decisions to rehabilitate and rescue the forsaken war veterans and
those maimed or killed in wars popularize him also among a section of the
American society.

But what distinguishes him most is his
sincerity, sobriety, a dignified posture, a tinge of profound humility, a
rancor-free disposition and a constructive and positive attitude. He possesses
a steeled determination and an unflinching commitment to reconstruct America
and revive and maintain the supremacy of this mighty country as an economic and
military power.

It is also to create as large a middle class as is possible for
better life for the Americans. Obama’s inclination and attitude is to bring peace
and to craft a role for America as a just and honest arbiter in the
international disputes. But he would not hesitate for a moment to retaliate
with full force if America’s security is at stake.

In his convention speech he appealed to the
American people to reelect him for another term so that he can continue his
sublime mission of realizing the American Dream. And what is the American
dream? The “Declaration
of Independence” proclaims it in these indelible words “In which all men are
created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness”.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Apart from the un-Islamic
parties and socio-political entities that opposed the creation of Pakistan as
an independent Muslim state, there were also Muslim organizations that were not
in favor of an Islamic state within the British India. These were Khaksars, the
Khudai Khidmatgars or Red Shirts, the Deobandi Muslim Movement (later JUI) and
the Jamaat-e-Islami founded by Maulana Maududi in 1941.

Had these segments supported Quaid-e-Azam in that historic
movement for carving out an independent state for Indian Muslims, the political
strength and backing would have been formidable for the founder of Pakistan to
claim Pakistan with greater confidence and tenacity. Besides the religio-political
outfits, the feudal of West Pakistan also stood in the way of Quaid-e-Azam to
strive for Muslims a separate independent homeland.

The Jamaat-e-Islami believed that a democratic state can never be Islamic
because the power is in the hands of the people and not God. The
pinnacle objective of Maulana Maududi behind founding a politico-religious
party was the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law as was prevalent during 23 years of the caliphate of the
first four caliphs. Such a government would be run by chaste, pious, and
righteous Muslims. Maulana Maududi did not want Pakistan to come into being
because it collided with his concept of a universal Islamic empire with
sovereignty resting in God.

Yet one paramount question that
boggles the mind is that when Maulana Maududi opposed Pakistan and its founder Quaid-e
Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah tooth and nail, why he migrated to live in this state
immediately after the partition. Later he said that Pakistan was destined to be
become an Islamic state. What a volte face!

The fundamental argument of the
Jamaat-Islami was that their concept of a universal or global Islamic empire did
not fit into a territory-bound country of Pakistan. Maulana depicted Pakistan
an un-Islamic state and the Quaid-e-Azam as the biggest infidel. Yet after
partition despite blocking and bitterly opposing its creation, Maulana Maududi
and his ideological companions had no other place to migrate except Pakistan.

They had come to Pakistan with a
design to convert it into an Islamic state of their vision and bidding. That
was a plan to hijack a progressive Pakistan that Quaid-e-Azam had visualized
and that he had literally snatched it from both Indian National Congress and
the British colonial masters.

The pinnacle objective of
Maulana Maududi behind establishing a politico-religious party was to create a
pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law as was prevalent during 29 years of the caliphate of the
first four caliphs. Such a government would be run by the chaste, pious, and
righteous Muslims. It also meant transfer the global leadership from evil,
immoral and unjust to the hands of righteous and faithful servants of almighty
God.

Now how an Islamic state on universal level
could be established with God as its sovereign without a territory or place to
stand upon? The man has been deputed by God in Adam to act and rule in earth as
his lieutenant. They ignored the historical fact that the prophet of Islam
spread his divine mission from the territory of Medina. Even a providential
empire cannot be founded in the air and the land is indispensable for carrying
out such a mission or undertaking.

The Jamaat stalwarts and its founders were
bitterly opposed to such titles as Muslim Nationalists or Nationalist Muslims
that they perceived were like calling a prostitute a pious prostitute. Besides
rejecting nationalism based on territory, they were also against socialism,
capitalism, communism and even science. How could JI (Jamaat-e- Islami) discard
and root out these powerful movments and replace these with a universal
caliphate? Would the respective states allow them to do so? It was thus a
purely utopian doctrine which was hotly contested later by Maulana Maududi’s
dissident companions.

Now let us suppose that if Muslims
would have lived in an undivided India, would that conform to the model of an
Islamic state that Maulana Maududi wanted to create. In larger context even the
whole of India would not be sufficient to realize the dream or goal of Jamaat-e-Islami
to found a truly Islamic empire or state where only the prototype of Khilafat-e
Rashida could be established.

Would the Hindu majority allow
them to remain at large to campaign and strive for an Islamic polity and state
within the undivided India? It was the kind of Pan-Islamism that was advocated by
Syed Jamaluddin Afghani in the 19th century and which met with
miserable failure as it could never be achieved.

The gigantic refugees’ problem,
the building of national institutions and infrastructure, the framing of a
constitution and establishing a democratic form of government were the
gubernatorial challenges to which the newly born state of Pakistan was exposed.The Jamaat’s
strategy of turning it into a theocracy by opposing every government, in fact,
triggered a process of destabilization and instability in the society.

From day one this party knew
that it would be impossible for it to come into power through the democratic
process of elections for realizing its myopic dream of ruling the world with Islam
as the dominant religion. The Jamaat’s lethal weapon has been its monolithic
organization and staunchly committed cadres such as Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba. It was also adept in vicious
rumor mongering, and vituperative propaganda to slander and defame its
opponents.

The Jamaat’s anti-Ahmadyia movement
in 1953 created immense chaos and upheaval and the first selectivedeclaration ofmartial
lawfor a nascent state that was
passing through the crucial process of settling down. One would question as to
why the Jamaat did not launch an anti-Ahmadyia campaign in the British India as
they were even then non-Muslims. For the countrywide riots and writing
incendiary and hate filled literature, Maulana Maududi was awarded death
sentence by the court that was finally commuted.

The Jamaat gave a tough time to
Ayub Khan by staging street agitations and taking out processions forcing him
to intimidate and oppress the Jamaat cadres.The collision with Military regime of Ayub Khan started when Jamaat
demanded the restoration of Islamic articles in the constitution of
1962 .The Jamaat was banned in 1964 and its activists were sent to jails.That was the beginning of a
process of destabilization which resurfaced from time to time in the subsequent
periods.

However, The Jamaat was
successful in putting the message across the country that it was a force to
reckon with and that it could rock the boat by its street agitations and
violent protests, literature and vilification blitz. As stated earlier, the
committed and brain-washed Jamaat cadres particularly the Islami
Jamiat-e-Talabawere
the militant wings of the party that aggressively and violently promoted the
arm twisting agenda and belligerency of the Jamaat. They have been dominating
the student unions in leading universities and colleges of Pakistan.

Rationally and honestly there
should be no objection to Jamaat’s desire to promote its concept of Islamizing
the whole world and reviving the pristine era of Khilafat-e Rashida. But the main
impediments in its way are the other religious outfits that would see the
Islamic theology and precepts in a differ color. The sectarian cleavages in Islam
would obviate any possibility of a common code to be followed by the Muslims in
Pakistan and elsewhere.

The Jamaat simply puts under the
rug the Saudi Arabia monarchy that cannot be defined as an Islamic model because
Islam does not allow family dynasties or priesthood (Rahbaniat). Moreover The
Saudi Arabia too is a geographical entity that JI wanted to deny to the Muslims
of the Subcontinent on the ground that it ran counter to the sovereignty of God
on earth. However, the Jamaat’s rabble-rousing ability brought to it the reward
in the form of the 1956 constitution written by a sympathizer of the Jamaat:
the then prime minister of Pakistan and chief of the Nizam-e-Islam party; Ch Muhammad
Ali.

The Jamaat has been shuttling
between the two systems i.e. democracy and dictatorship in the political arena
of Pakistan. It supported Fatima Jinnah
as a candidate against general Ayub Khan in 1964 elections. That was in fact a
negation and infringement of its own faith that democracy was not a substitute
for an Islamic order whose head is always God himself. The Jamaat believes that
the law in the shape of Qur’an is already there only to be implemented. In
democracy, it contends, the laws are made by the human beings.

Againthey participated in 1970 general elections
disregarding that the Jamaat was against the western electoral system and
believed in a Shoorai( consultation or collective decision-making) model in
which only a body of pious Muslims is
chosen to rule and implement the Quranic laws and traditions of Hadith.

Also in sheer breach of their Islamic
constitution, they supported and sided with three dictators namely Yahya Khan,
Ziaul Haq and lately general Pervez Musharraf. To beef up the onslaught by
Pakistan army in East Pakistan in 1971, they mobilized their militant
outfitsknown as Al-shams and Al-Badr. These brigands
indiscriminately and brutally killed the Bengalis who were fighting for their
freedom against an army notwithstanding the contention if they were right or
wrong. That was certainly the rank opportunism and sheer betrayal of its own
professed creed that it would neither support western democracy nor the
dictatorship but only the rule and sovereignty of God on earth and enforcement
of Shariah.

Their spine-chilling atrocities
through their Bengali cohorts were returned by Mukti-Behni in gruesome massacres
and barbaric slaughtering of the west Pakistanis including the men in uniform. For
the cessation of East Pakistan JI bears equal responsibility besides the chauvinistic
and moronic military junta that was at helm during those critical times.

It also projected itself as the strongest
and most trenchant ideological, political supporter and steadfast ally of General
Ziaul haq, the latter day self-styled crusader who wanted to Islamize Pakistan
and impose a defunct, narrow and radical model of Islam on it by brutal means.

In their unconditional loyalty
and unstinted capitulation to General Zia they were able to send Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto to the gallows. When Bhutto was in Rawalpindi jail they spread the rumors
that the Palestinians guerrillas were planning to get him out jail. Thereafter,
Bhutto’s cell was fortified with concrete walls and placed under maximum surveillance.
The night Mr. Bhutto was hanged; Mian Muhammad Tufail was in constant touch
with General Zia.

The JI’s third show of support
was for general Musharraf against an elected and constitutional government. But
they see in the dictators an easy prey for their narrow demands and phony
objectives to be realized As such they forget the virtues of Islamic democracy and
divine rule on earth and stand behind the ruthless and power hungry dictators.

The dictatorship is in fact
close to the perception of fundamentalist parties like JI as a shortcut for the
enforcement of an Islamic order of their choice. So let us call this an
unworthy bid for attainment of base motives and grabbing of power under the guise
of Islam: a religion that shuns such intrigues for self perpetuation and aggrandizement.

This party is now in coalition
with Pakistan Tehrik Insaf (PTI). What would happen to PTI with such a smart partner
is a story in the making that would be unraveled in due course of time.

(Note: All the years quoted in
this article are in Christian calendar- C.E. or B.C.E.)

All the known
religions and their founders of the past do not have clear-cut chronological
facts and figures about their lives and missions. It is only the prophet of
Islam who has the unsurpassed distinction of his life properly chronicled and
recorded. All the phases encompassing his birth to his final departure from the
transitory earthly abode have been meticulously and distinctly preserved.

The times
periods and years relating to the ancient apostles starting from Adam to
Solomon and afterwards are ambiguous and lack credibility. These years are
simply approximate that in a roundabout manner describe the periods in which
these apostles of God existed. This assertion in no way negates their divinity
or their being the messengers of God in various eras.

The Biblical
or history-based religions are three i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
From among the litany of the mythical religions, the Hinduism, Buddhism,
Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, stand on top. The ancient mythical religions and
their dogmas come to be known from one generation to another by word of mouth
or from writing on the stone tablets or columns. As such these religions
suffered from distortions, exaggerations and a kind of mythical stuff that
mostly are hard to believe.

The principal
reason for such a lacuna was the absence of a workable or credible system for
recording the chronological data and securing the utterances, sayings and
sermons of the sages, saints and prophets of the bygone ages delivered to their
respective communities. As such these religions belong to an age when the
techniques of preserving the history of the world or religions were yet not
discovered.

The New
Testament was historically written by different authors at different times
after the ascension of Jesus to heavens. The period of writing the New
Testament is reckoned to be between 35 to 85 years after Jesus’ ascension. With
regard to the contents of the Bible both in the old and the New Testament,
there are grave variations in the editions published in various stages and
times. The authors of the four gospels, Mathew, Johan, Luke and Mark differ
with each other on a whole range of episodes and events concerning Jesus
Christ. Jesus did not dictate his speeches, sermons and conversations, nor did these
scribes take notes for securing his utterances and messages.

The myriad of
different texts of the Bible and the variation in narration by authors bear the
testimony that the gospels lacked the actual utterances of the Jesus. It could
at best be described the life account of an apostle or prophet of God with
broader events but not in the actual sequence as he lived and delivered his
divine discoursesAccording to a
research scholar on religions, Dr. Abdul Hye, there were 103 clear contractions
in the Bible.

From the
primitive manuscripts of the Bible to the latest one known as “King James
Version” (KJV) compiled and published in 1611, a staggering number of fifty
thousand grammatical and descriptive errors have been corrected or redrafted.
The KJV has dropped 7 books that were part of the Bible for roughly almost
three thousand years. The Protestants do not believe in these 7 discarded
books. If such a hug number of books are excluded as apocrypha, then one can
imagine how fictitious this stuff could that was believed by the Christians for
almost 16 hundred years.

As we all know
that there are a total of 66 books that constitute the two parts of the Bible
commonly known as the old and the New Testament. The Hebrew or the old
treatment consists of 39 chapters or books and the New Testament comprises 27
chapters. These two sections were written by some 40 men in the course of 1600
years that is from 1513(B.C.E.) to 98(A.C.). There are only fables and
narrations concerning kings, rulers, battles or the messages of the apostles
covering several centuries written by a diversity of authors who were not even
present during the occurrence of those incidents. These writings are devoid of
clear-cut chronological order.

The Hindu religion does not have a founder,
‘definite creed, priestly hierarchy or governing agency” (Mankind’s Search for
God) It historically starts from the writing of the Vedas some 900 years before
the Jesus Christ (B.C.E.). The Vedas were later augmented and supplemented by
Brahmanas, Upanishads and Puranas. It would be utterly impossible to justify or
figure out if the 330 million gods in the Hindu mythology actually exist or
not? It is also difficult to apportion definite periods or times during which
these volumes were written and by whom these were written.

As for the
founder of Buddhism there is no evidence or account of his life and religious
doctrine that was scribed during his life time. All that we know about him are
the canonical texts that have no historical evidence about their time of
writings and their authors. There is a mention of the convening of council by
500 monks after the death of Buddha to deliberate about the authentic teachings
of the master i.e., Siddhartha Gautama. So the Buddhist canonical material as
uttered from the mouth of Gautama was not recorded in his life time but was
compiled much later by others.

The Shinto and
Tao and Confucianism religions too are embodiments of obscurity and are unclear
about the exact time and periods of their apostles. Taoism is believed to be
founded by philosopher Lao-Tzu some six centuries before the Jesus Christ.
Little is known about him except that after his retirement from the royal
service he wrote a brief treatise of 5000 words at the request of some custom
officer of those primitive times.

After writing
the book he departed and was seen or heard no more. The researchers however are
skeptical about this story. But one thing is quite clear that Lao-Tzu has been
obscure and least known among the founders of religious or faith based creeds.
The gist of the Taoism is to “shun the society and return to the nature”

The life story
of the great philosopher of the East Confucius is more elaborate as compared to
Lao. Both these sages belonged to the same period of Chou dynasty; torn and
weakened by a long period of wars and chaos. A part of the life account of
Confucius looks to be more mythical than reality. He is described to be a great
teacher. His lectures and sayings are saved in nine books by his disciples who
travelled with him during his tours. This is one sage or the founder of creed
and a moral code, whose writings are preserved but still not in a chronological
format and without mention of any specific time periods.

Let us now
turn our attention to the prophet of Islam. He is the most watched, observed,
revered, adored and chronicled prophet in the history.He was born in 570 and died in 632.In between
this period his revelations sayings, commandment, decrees, decisions, tenets
and events were recorded and memorized by those who observed and remained with
him in praying, during hardships, preaching, in battles, social interaction or
in traveling.

As stated in
the foregoing, the scriptures and holy books of the other leading religions
such as Bible were written over a time frame of several centuries by other
authors after the death of Jesus Christ. However, the holy book of the Muslims,
Qur’an was preserved by prophet Muhammad himself for all the 23 years during
which he was receiving the revelations. Since he himself was unlettered, his
method of preserving the divine messages and directions were to recite them
before the Muslim faithful, compatriots, family members and others who would
commit these to memory and keep it alive by repeated recitations. Later these
would be written on shoulder blades of camel or sheep, palm leaves, wood,
parchments and dried skins.

Apart from his
revelations his social utterances, normal conversations, sermons and decisions
are composed in the form of Hadith. Every period of his life starting from the
childhood, to his upbringing, his adolescence, his youth, his marriages, his
business tours, his meditations in the cave Hira and the divine mission to
peach Islam are meticulously preserved, arranged and tabulated in a
chronological order.

It was during
the first Caliph Hazarat Abu Bakr's caliphate that Qur’an was collected from
written and memorized sources and the task of their assembly in shape of a book
was initiated. However it was during the caliphate of the third caliph Hazrat
Usman (Othman) that it was complied in the form of a proper book.A good number of copies of this original
edition of Quran were made and sent to various destinations within the Muslim
territories.

When Hazrat
Usman was murdered in 656, he was reading the same edition of Qur’an that was
compiled under his guidance and circulated to other places. The copy of that
specific Qur’an is preserved in the Topkapi museum in Istanbul (Turkey) and in
Tashkent (Uzbekistan). The Qur’an from that period to the present is the exact
copy of that original edition formulated during the third caliph Hazrat Osman's
period.

From his birth
in 570 to his first marriage with Hazrat Khadija in 595, to his fist revelation
in 610, preaching in public from 613 onwards, to sending of persecuted Muslims
to Abyssinia in 615 are the events that are indelible facts of history. His
crusades, his meeting during the Hajj with a batch of Medina pilgrims in 620
migration from Mecca to Medina in 622, stay in Medina and the “Battle of
Trenches in 627, conquering Mecca in 630, his demise in 632 are various phases
of his glorious life that were witnessed by countless Muslims and non-Muslims
alike of those times and are clearly narrated in history with the dates and
months and even timings.

When he passed away he was buried in the same room where he
lived after migrating to Medina. The tomb erected on his grave stands from day
one and is visited round the year by countless Muslims from all over the world.
That is a continuous evidence of his presence till death in Medina and
therefore is irrefutable.

The graves or
tombs of other ancient prophets do not denote any period and did not survive in
their in their original shape during the course time. The floods, natural
disasters and ravages of invaders did not leave the original forms of their
resting places in holy cities like Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Cairo, among
others Damascus. During his invasion of Baghdad in 1258, the Mongol invader
Hilaku Khan demolished every building in Baghdad and inundated the city by
diverting the river Euphrates to the city.

In contrast,
the loving and caring way, the tomb of Hazrat Muhammad with its shining green
minaret has been kept intact and well maintained for fourteen centuries speaks
for the imperishable glory ofa prophet
who is as immortal after his death as he was held in extreme love and unbounded
reverence by Muslims during his life time. As a model of personal piety and
immaculate moral character, his life is shining like a diamond and serves ever
as a beacon of divine light for the humanity.

The sustained
revelations of the Muslims’ holy book Quran for 23 years and later its
compilation done by prophet himself and later by his two successors also
undeniably testify to the fact that it was not the work of later day scribes or
writers. It is a truthful, genuine and authentic chronological production by
prophet himself and by those who were witnesses to its being revealed,
memorized, written and distributed.

Prophet
Muhammad appeared as God’s messenger in an era that was not as primitive as
compared to those eras of early messengers and apostles. The age of Prophet
Muhammad was considerably advanced and developed. The time distance between
Jesus Christ and Muhammad is 570 years. In between there was no prophet that
could lay claim of prophet-hood. In these 570 years the world had progressed
considerably.

The two main
Biblical religions namely Judaism and Christianity are in fact the forerunners
of Islam. Islam acknowledges and owns these religions as the precursors of
Islam.However, with the advent of
Islam, the outdated, obsolete teachings or unwanted dogmas contained in those
scriptures were edited, updated and refined by the founder of the Islam.

In fact Islam,
as the legend goes, starts from Prophet Adam and assumes the finality with the
last prophet of Islam as declared by him in Mecca in 630 C.E, in his last
sermon during the pilgrimage. On that occasion he declared before a mammoth
assemblage of pilgrims that the religion Islam stood completed today. The
prophets and apostles mentioned in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures)
and the New Testament (the Greek scriptures) are also the prophets of Islam.
Yet the Prophet Muhammad enjoys the exclusive distinction of being the final
messenger of God in the line of prophets that came before him from time to
time.

It is
therefore, foregone that the life of Prophet Muhammad is not mired in
obscurity, mythical ambiguity and hollow projections. It has been candidly
self–revealing, carefully and diligently chronicled by his colleagues,
contemporary historians and by those who came in subsequent times. As such it is
truthful and pristine.

About Me

Columnist/Analyst/ Former Diplomat.
After obtaining my master’s degrees in Urdu and English literature from Punjab University, I started my career by teaching in a college. Thereafter, I had a stint in the diplomatic service of Pakistan. Finally I landed in journalism, an occupation that I am wedded to for over 20 years now.
I am a strong believer in a civil society and staunch opponent of exploitation in all forms.